ST.NO. 7010/2025 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 15/1997(Deepak Diggambarappa Gondal [dead] thr. Lrs v. Vatsalabai wd/o diggambarappa Gondal [dead]thr. Lrs)
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ROHIT W JOSHI
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the rejection of review application, allpending civil applications are disposed of as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 16
Judgment
2 1 MCA St 7010.25of second wife of the father whose marriage was illegal in view of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1954. Theappeal filed by the plaintiffs also came to be dismissed on same ground. In this backdrop, present second appeal is filed. 3. The second appeal was dismissed confirming the decrees passed by learned Courts. The original plaintiffs has filed present application for review placing reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Revanasiddappa and another Vs. Mallikarjun and others,(2023) 10 SCC 1. Perusal of the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court will demonstrate that children begotten from the second wife are legitimate children and accordingly they are entitled to inherit property of their father in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is held that as regards ancestral property of the father, children begotten from an illegal marriage will be entitled to receive a share as legal heirs of the father, from and out of the share of the father after his demise.
It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have been granted share from the share of the father treating them to be legitimate children in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that they ought to have been granted independent share ascoparceners in the suit property which is admittedly a JointHindu Family Property. The contention is liable to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt relied upon by the learned counsel forappellant/applicant. 3 1 MCA St 7010.254.The other contention raised by the learned counselfor appellant is that apart from the father, there were three sons, who are begotten from the first wife who werecoparceners in the family. He contends that on demise of the father by virtue of notional partition, 1/4th share should have been carved out for the father and out of this 1/4thshare, all the Class I legal heirs should have been granted ashare in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu SuccessionAct.
Operative part
It is undisputed that the first wife was alive on the date of demise of the father. It is well settled that although a wife cannot claim partition, on a partition, she is entitled to get ashare equal to that of a coparcener-son. Therefore, apart from the father and three sons, one share is required to be carved out for the first wife. Accordingly, the share of the father will not be 1/4th, but 1/5th which is rightly computed. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for review of the judgment dated 10.12.2012 passed in Second Appeal No. 15/1997.5.Review application is rejected. 6. In view of the rejection of review application, all pending civil applications are disposed of as infructuous. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI , J.) Gohane
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the rejection of review application, allpending civil applications are disposed of as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 16.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.